On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 14:09 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 01:53:29PM -0500, Dave Robillard wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 16:15 +0100, Fons Adriaensen wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 09:15:35PM +0100, Esben Stien wrote: > > > > > > > But that's really the funny thing here. Your software isn't from the > > > > free/open source software communities. It doesn't conform to neither > > > > the free software definition nor the open source definition. > > > > > > > > I'm glad that GPLv3 fixes this issue, cause if you state that the > > > > software is under GPLv3 you may not impose any further restrictions on > > > > the work, if I read the license correctly. > > > > > > > > > Dio mio. Why does this remind me of Revolutionary Guards > > > rhetoric from the Cultural Revolution era (People's > > > Republic of China, mid 1960s) ? > > > > Because you're trolling? :) > > No, it reminds me because of the wording. I guess I've grown to > be allergic to any statements of the form > > "You are not a true Communist/Christian/Moslim/American/..."
So we'd be better off with no definition of "open source" or "free software" at all? Obviously not. This has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with "you are not a true...". Accepted and widely understood licensing blanket terms are useful (i.e. actually, truly, useful, in the most pragmatic sense possible). Attacking them and/or misleading people about them does nothing but harm. Especially when it's a weak variation of pulling a Godwin ;) -DR- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
